Police Attempt To Raid Garage Sale with AirSoft gear, Get Kicked To Curb (video)

page: 21
78
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by viperdave
 


It really upsets me, how people keep saying, "Gun control means hitting your target." They seem to think that shooting guns makes you a real man. You know what makes you a real man? Solving conflicts using your brain, being there for your family, and not f***ing up the world.



No, shooting guns doesn't make one a "real man", but lack thereof has been known to make people "real victims".




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Why do people learn karate??? To be a bad ass?? Nope we learn it to defend ourselfs

Same with a gun my friend, I will NEVER be a victim!!! EVER!!

But I'm sure you will just "talk" the home invasion robbers into leaveing your house

I can see your point and in a perfect world we wouldn't have or need guns

But my friend, we don't live in a perfect world

And my advise to you is at least learn how to shoot a gun, even if you don't own one, it may just save you life one day or at least if you find one on the ground you will know how to make it safe


Be safe people



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   


These sort of threads are useful because it can encourage people to go and research the law for themselves in order to come to a more informed decision about who is in the right or wrong. Please be encouraged.
reply to post by Sek82
 


I like to look into the facts and see the feedback also.

A big point here is that California laws that are more restrictive then many other states so things are not always as a person might think at first glance.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   


But I'm sure you will just "talk" the home invasion robbers into leaveing your house


There was a shooting in Houston this week involving an ex-police officer. After his house had been broken into three time, on the four times he was at home. After the robbers kicked in the door, he warned then he was there and asked them to leave.

And they didn't. One got shot, the others two fled afterwards. Even being polite does not work often. I would not rely on a crook's good nature either.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


I totaly agree with you but we are kindof getting off topic

As I stated earlier in this thred, air soft rifles are very real looking!! They are heavy like a real firearm and from the street they do look real!! All these officers were trying to do was check to see if they were real

And they have every right to walk on the property and check

People, listen please, the police are not your enemy they deal with the worst humanity has to offer on a daily basis most police officers are very polite and they are just looking out for EVERYBODY'S safety , that's there job

Yes there are. bad cops , and they should be watched but what these people are doing in the video is bateing the cops to do something wrong!!! It's a set up!!

I just hope these people don't need the police when something realy bad happends!!

It's allways great to have a good friend that's also a cop!!


Be safe people



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
First of all the person recorded this is retarded. So put yourself in the cops shoe and you saw someone selling drugs or what looks to be gun..Wouldn't you want them to investigate? Not for nothing but this is to all of those "COPWATCHER" out there, if there is immediate danger to human life they have legal right to investigate. There's no need for warrant and your stupid private property excuse. All of that go out the door. Idiots. Apparently alot of folks lack common sense.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
Okay Ben I like your threads but this one... I'm not taking the bait.
So they are selling Airsoft guns, no big deal once that is known. But they could very well be real M4s from a distance, can they not? They got a call from some other concerned citizen and are just responding to it.

So residents are holding a Garage Sale, and when a cop steps up to check out the wares, the "Private Property" card gets pulled and I'm supposed to side with the idiots selling this stuff?

This can be compared to that guy who was questioned by police while carrying an arsenal of weapons, you are right. They are trolling for police response just to put it on YouTube while crying about their rights being infringed upon.


Yes you are supposed to side with the idiots. They need a WARRANT or probable cause. They could have asked, from the SIDEWALK, if it was OK for them to enter the property. Just because this took place on grass and not within four concrete walls doesn't make what this cop did any less offensive. So by your argument, someone could say I was shooting off guns in my house or some other outrageous claim and the cops could simply kick down my door because "someone made a phone call?"

Let's not have training police officers then - let's just hire some goons to enforce whatever laws they see fit. That's what the first "officer" acted like anyway.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by flashtrum
Yes you are supposed to side with the idiots. They need a WARRANT or probable cause.

No really they dont.



Originally posted by flashtrum
They could have asked, from the SIDEWALK, if it was OK for them to enter the property. Just because this took place on grass and not within four concrete walls doesn't make what this cop did any less offensive. So by your argument, someone could say I was shooting off guns in my house or some other outrageous claim and the cops could simply kick down my door because "someone made a phone call?"

There is nothing to ask.. It was a valid call for service and the guns were out in plain sight. Depending on where this took place (apartment complex vs. some other property - in the video its discussed) plays a factor as well. If it occured at an apartment complex the parking lot is private property that is open to the public, meaning only the property owners, not renters, can tell people to leave.

Again though, a moot point since the guns were in plain sight. Its one of the exceptions to the 4th amendment. Its also a potential violation of California gun laws as a person must have a certificate to purchase a gun and only licensed dealers can sell guns. There is a 10 mandatory waiting period and any gun sold must have paperwork completed and submitted by the selling entity. If you check CA law you will find that restricted buisinesses (businesses who sell marijuana, alcohol, weapons, etc) have built in compliance checks, meaning the business can be checked at any time by the authorities to ensure compliance of the law.

The fact the guns in this case were airsoft is irrelevent until its confirmed. Prior to that they are treated as real and the officers are covered under good faith exceptions.


Originally posted by flashtrum
Let's not have training police officers then - let's just hire some goons to enforce whatever laws they see fit. That's what the first "officer" acted like anyway.

Yeah much better to have obnoxious ignorant civilians who dont know the law, who dont know their rights,who don't know how their rights work, let alone how a police investigation works.

I am all for training of the police beyond the academy level however the law is everyones responsibility. Knowing what your rights are and how they work is everyones responsibility. I am all for holding law enforcement and government accountible however people should know what the hell they are talking about before trying it.
edit on 8-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by flashtrum
Yes you are supposed to side with the idiots. They need a WARRANT or probable cause.

No really they dont.



Originally posted by flashtrum
They could have asked, from the SIDEWALK, if it was OK for them to enter the property. Just because this took place on grass and not within four concrete walls doesn't make what this cop did any less offensive. So by your argument, someone could say I was shooting off guns in my house or some other outrageous claim and the cops could simply kick down my door because "someone made a phone call?"

There is nothing to ask.. It was a valid call for service and the guns were out in plain sight. Depending on where this took place (apartment complex vs. some other property - in the video its discussed) plays a factor as well. If it occured at an apartment complex the parking lot is private property that is open to the public, meaning only the property owners, not renters, can tell people to leave.

Again though, a moot point since the guns were in plain sight. Its one of the exceptions to the 4th amendment. Its also a potential violation of California gun laws as a person must have a certificate to purchase a gun and only licensed dealers can sell guns. There is a 10 mandatory waiting period and any gun sold must have paperwork completed and submitted by the selling entity. If you check CA law you will find that restricted buisinesses (businesses who sell marijuana, alcohol, weapons, etc) have built in compliance checks, meaning the business can be checked at any time by the authorities to ensure compliance of the law.

The fact the guns in this case were airsoft is irrelevent until its confirmed. Prior to that they are treated as real and the officers are covered under good faith exceptions.


Originally posted by flashtrum
Let's not have training police officers then - let's just hire some goons to enforce whatever laws they see fit. That's what the first "officer" acted like anyway.

Yeah much better to have obnoxious ignorant civilians who dont know the law, who dont know their rights,who don't know how their rights work, let alone how a police investigation works.

I am all for training of the police beyond the academy level however the law is everyones responsibility. Knowing what your rights are and how they work is everyones responsibility. I am all for holding law enforcement and government accountible however people should know what the hell they are talking about before trying it.
edit on 8-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Yeah really they do. And you are assuming the guns were in plain site from the sidewalk. Seems like they were a bit far back to be viewed appropriately.

The law IS everyone's responsibility but in terms of ENFORCEMENT, it starts with local law enforcement.

The problem is that police departments have become more militant (most now in dark uni's, heck the tunnel police in my area have unmarked cars with dark windows - really? Transit police? Who aren't so much protecting the tunnel as they are attempting to catch people speeding) and many simply ignore the law. The first cop was on private property without a warrant or probable cause. Sorry but attempting to make the "Swat-like" calls doesn't make it right and doesn't make it legal. You or Officer Friendly cannot simply come on my property without my consent or again w/o cause/warrant.

You can allow your liberties to continue to be stripped from you. I choose not to.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by flashtrum
Yeah really they do. And you are assuming the guns were in plain site from the sidewalk. Seems like they were a bit far back to be viewed appropriately.

No really they don't.



Originally posted by flashtrum
The law IS everyone's responsibility but in terms of ENFORCEMENT, it starts with local law enforcement.

and in this case Law Enforcement knew what they were doing where as the 2 people telling the police they broke the law are wrong. There was no law violation by the authorities. There was no 42 USC violation by the authorities.



Originally posted by flashtrum
The first cop was on private property without a warrant or probable cause. Sorry but attempting to make the "Swat-like" calls doesn't make it right and doesn't make it legal. You or Officer Friendly cannot simply come on my property without my consent or again w/o cause/warrant.

Depending on the situation yes, law enforcement can come onto your property without a warrant and without consent. This is what I am talking about when I state people need to not only know the law, they need to know their rights and how those rights work. The officer's actions in this case were valid and were lawful.



Originally posted by flashtrum
You can allow your liberties to continue to be stripped from you. I choose not to.

No liberties were stripped.. Secondly just because you are not familiar with the law and how it works doesn't mean your liberties are being stripped. A person should know the restrictions placed on the government before they take the agency to task and accuse them of a violation when none occured. That type of mindset / attitude is part of the breakdown in communications between the police and the people they serve.

Had the 2 civilians in the video who kept repeating the same sentence over and over and over made the encounter what it was, not the police. They had no interest in what the police were doing or what they had to say when they attempted to explain why they were there.

Law Enforcement was within the law from start to finish on this one.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by viperdave
reply to post by roadgravel
 


I totaly agree with you but we are kindof getting off topic

As I stated earlier in this thred, air soft rifles are very real looking!! They are heavy like a real firearm and from the street they do look real!! All these officers were trying to do was check to see if they were real

And they have every right to walk on the property and check

People, listen please, the police are not your enemy they deal with the worst humanity has to offer on a daily basis most police officers are very polite and they are just looking out for EVERYBODY'S safety , that's there job

Yes there are. bad cops , and they should be watched but what these people are doing in the video is bateing the cops to do something wrong!!! It's a set up!!

I just hope these people don't need the police when something realy bad happends!!

It's allways great to have a good friend that's also a cop!!


Be safe people


Police have no more RIGHTS than anyone... They only have authority...and unfortunately, you are wrong, they do NOT have the authority to touch, or look into or anything else on private property, just because they feel like there might be a danger to someone somewhere, or they think there might be a crime potentially committed in the future.

Even if they were real guns and even if they didn't have a license to sell real guns....Until a transaction is made, there would have been NO crime committed and the police would not have any authority to do Anything...

possession of a firearm is not illegal, possession of a firearm in PUBLIC is not illegal and even where it is, the presence of a firearm alone is NOT justification for a cop to even suspect that a crime has been committed (ruling by the supreme court).

This means that the police had NO authority and ABSOLUTELY no RIGHT to go and touch the guns without consent.

Jaden



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
I find it quite odd that people are supporting the actions of the cops.
If they really had evidence of real guns being sold at the sale they would have brought in a search warrant.
I do not think a phone call from a random person is legal for a search. usually a judge and evidence is needed to search a person or their stuff.

I do not understand how the sellers set up the cops? Where is the evidence supporting they where trapping the cops with the actions of a garage sale?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by flashtrum

Originally posted by Sek82
Okay Ben I like your threads but this one... I'm not taking the bait.
So they are selling Airsoft guns, no big deal once that is known. But they could very well be real M4s from a distance, can they not? They got a call from some other concerned citizen and are just responding to it.

So residents are holding a Garage Sale, and when a cop steps up to check out the wares, the "Private Property" card gets pulled and I'm supposed to side with the idiots selling this stuff?

This can be compared to that guy who was questioned by police while carrying an arsenal of weapons, you are right. They are trolling for police response just to put it on YouTube while crying about their rights being infringed upon.


Yes you are supposed to side with the idiots. They need a WARRANT or probable cause. They could have asked, from the SIDEWALK, if it was OK for them to enter the property. Just because this took place on grass and not within four concrete walls doesn't make what this cop did any less offensive. So by your argument, someone could say I was shooting off guns in my house or some other outrageous claim and the cops could simply kick down my door because "someone made a phone call?"

Let's not have training police officers then - let's just hire some goons to enforce whatever laws they see fit. That's what the first "officer" acted like anyway.






You are incorrect, the garage was open and they were having a garage sale open to the public. These rifles were in plain view and therefore no search warrant was needed. If the garage was CLOSED, different story. Also as a former police officer myself, not one law enforcement officer in the world would stand at the end of the driveway and have a conversation while someone who potentially could grab one of these rifles and fire on the officers. The officer has no idea if they are real or not and look very real. This officer did exactly what he was supposed to do and needed no permission to conduct a search. The video actually protects the officer in what he did and makes the poster look bad



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by zoijar
I find it quite odd that people are supporting the actions of the cops.
If they really had evidence of real guns being sold at the sale they would have brought in a search warrant.
I do not think a phone call from a random person is legal for a search. usually a judge and evidence is needed to search a person or their stuff.

I do not understand how the sellers set up the cops? Where is the evidence supporting they where trapping the cops with the actions of a garage sale?


They did not a search warrant in this case, the garage door was open having a garage sale open to the public and the rifles were in plain view. Search warrant is no longer needed. If the garage door was closed and rifles were being sold, different story and a search warrant would be needed. Even if there was a sign outside that said No police officers allowed, Law enforcement would not have to obey this sign due to the weapons being in plain view, the key word is plain view.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I have posted a bunch of replies on here and I see that some others have as well. It all comes down to the plain view doctrine, which is the main reason the officer was able to conduct this search without a warrant. If anyone has any questions just message me



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow
I have posted a bunch of replies on here and I see that some others have as well. It all comes down to the plain view doctrine, which is the main reason the officer was able to conduct this search without a warrant. If anyone has any questions just message me


SORRY you are ALL WRONG...

The supreme court has ruled that a firearm in plain view is NOT justification to assume that a crime has been committed.

They would have to witness a transaction at the LEAST to even be able to SUSPECT that a crime had been committed and even then they couldn't SUSPECT that a crime had been committed without it being an undercover officer purchasing the firearm and VERIFYING that the transaction was not conducted legally.

They have NO way of knowing that the person does not have a dealer's license or a manufacture and sale license, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA....

Without knowledge of a crime being committed, they CANNOT assume one has and they have NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to do ANYTHING...

As for the former cop, your ignorance just showcases how much we need to better train those we place with authority over us.

That fact that you claim you wouldn't have stood by and obeyed the law, is just a credit to how overreaching the whole cop idiom is....


Jaden
edit on 9-7-2012 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow
I have posted a bunch of replies on here and I see that some others have as well. It all comes down to the plain view doctrine, which is the main reason the officer was able to conduct this search without a warrant. If anyone has any questions just message me


I'm sorry, but the plain view doctrine only applies to an obvious crime...The supreme court has ruled that the appearance of a gun is not justification to assume that a crime has been committed and cannot be used on its' lonesome to proceed as though they have probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed.

OUR LIBERTY MUST COME BEFORE EVERYTHING....Especially, a police officer's safety who assumes the risk of the mantle by accepting his pay.

Jaden



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by surfnow
I have posted a bunch of replies on here and I see that some others have as well. It all comes down to the plain view doctrine, which is the main reason the officer was able to conduct this search without a warrant. If anyone has any questions just message me


SORRY you are ALL WRONG...

The supreme court has ruled that a firearm in plain view is NOT justification to assume that a crime has been committed.

They would have to witness a transaction at the LEAST to even be able to SUSPECT that a crime had been committed and even then they couldn't SUSPECT that a crime had been committed without it being an undercover officer purchasing the firearm and VERIFYING that the transaction was not conducted legally.

They have NO way of knowing that the person does not have a dealer's license or a manufacture and sale license, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA....

Without knowledge of a crime being committed, they CANNOT assume one has and they have NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to do ANYTHING...

As for the former cop, your ignorance just showcases how much we need to better train those we place with authority over us.

That fact that you claim you wouldn't have stood by and obeyed the law, is just a credit to how overreaching the whole cop idiom is....


Jaden
edit on 9-7-2012 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)


Horton vs California
In order for the plain view doctrine to apply there are three elements that need to be met.
In its conclusion the Court held that a plain view doctrine seizure has three elements. First, the officer must already be lawfully present in an area protected by the 4th Amendment, second, the item must be out in plain view, and third, the officer must immediately recognize the item as evidence or contraband without making a further intrusion. All the elements were met but are all irrelevant anyway. There was a garage sale open to the public, the weapons were in plain view and the weapons were observable from the street. As a bonus a call was made about weapons being sold. The officer has plenty to go on without a search warrant. He doesnt need it in this case as I have said before. Once that garage door was open, and to the public with weapons in plain view, he has more then enough PC to conduct a search without a warrant. Go do some research before u type as u are incorrect



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by surfnow
 


You're missing the salient point....

What is it evidence OF?????

Yes, it has to be evidence....Is a cigarette butt evidence that a person is an arsonist????

It has to be evidence AFTER a crime has been committed. Or there has to be reasonable suspicion that a crime HAS been committed.

The supreme court has ruled that the presence of a firearm is NOT evidence that a crime has been committed... therefore there is no evidence of a crime, therefore a firearm in public view does NOT constitute evidence of a crime, plain view or NOT....

Jaden



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
SORRY you are ALL WRONG...

As a police officer im telling you, you are wrong.


Originally posted by Masterjaden
The supreme court has ruled that a firearm in plain view is NOT justification to assume that a crime has been committed.

Possession of a firearm in and of itself is not illegal. However when there are laws in place that cover the sale and transfer of firearms, which include being a licensed seller, requiring specific paperwork, doing a background check with a mandatory 10 day waiting period among others, and those guns are being reported as for sale at a garage sale, it violtes the law.

In this case the "guns" were in plain sight. The officer did not need a warrant to walk onto the property to check to see what was being sold. When it was determined they were airsoft guns, and there was no law violation, they left.

If you are going to reference Supreme Court rulings then you need to understand them all and not just one. Specifically where the Surpeme Court ruled that while the 2nd amendment applies to the individual (Chicago and DC case), the states can regulate the sale of those items, which include licensing, background checks and paperwork requirements.



Originally posted by Masterjaden
They would have to witness a transaction at the LEAST to even be able to SUSPECT that a crime had been committed and even then they couldn't SUSPECT that a crime had been committed without it being an undercover officer purchasing the firearm and VERIFYING that the transaction was not conducted legally.

Incorrect.

Please understand the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Understand how those terms interact with the 4th amendment and then brush up on the exceptions to the 4th amendment.

In the state of California medical marijuana is legal to sell if you are a licensed dealer. If you are selling without that license, you are in violation of the law. This is no different when it comes to the sale of firearms. If you look at both laws you will see their are exceptions in place that allows law enforcement to check businesses to ensure they are complying with the law.



Originally posted by Masterjaden
They have NO way of knowing that the person does not have a dealer's license or a manufacture and sale license, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA....

Please read the California law when it comes to the sale of firearms and the requirements needed.



Originally posted by Masterjaden
Without knowledge of a crime being committed, they CANNOT assume one has and they have NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to do ANYTHING...

Again you would be wrong. Law Enforcement had every legal right to invesitgate the claim.


Originally posted by Masterjaden
As for the former cop, your ignorance just showcases how much we need to better train those we place with authority over us.

That fact that you claim you wouldn't have stood by and obeyed the law, is just a credit to how overreaching the whole cop idiom is....

I would think that before you attack a person who knows what he is talking about that you actually know what the hell you are talking about first. Which you do not, and thats coming from me who is still an active member of law enforcement.

If you are going to support a position, the goal would be to use actual facts and rulings that, you know, support your position. The officers in this case were withing the law, local state as well as federal.





new topics
top topics
 
78
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum